TO DETERMINE WHETHER COLLEGE PROFESSORS CAN USE THE CLINICAL PROFESSOR APPROACH IN TEACHING METHODS CLASSES, TWO INSTRUCTORS AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE IN FREDONIA, NEW YORK, TAUGHT SOCIAL STUDIES EACH DAY TO A SPECIFIC GROUP OF SIXTH GRADE CHILDREN IN THE COLLEGE CAMPUS SCHOOL. THEY CONCURRENTLY TAUGHT A METHODS COURSE IN THE TEACHING OF SOCIAL STUDIES TO SPECIFIC GROUPS OF COLLEGE JUNIORS WHO ALSO REGULARLY OBSERVED THEIR INSTRUCTORS TEACHING THE GRADE SCHOOL CHILDREN. QUESTIONNAIRES ASKED (1) THE COLLEGE STUDENTS TO EVALUATE THE APPROACH, (2) THE REACTION TO THE PROGRAM OF COOPERATING TEACHERS UNDER WHOM THE COLLEGE JUNIORS WERE STUDENT TEACHING, (3) THE SUBJECTIVE REACTIONS OF THE TWO INSTRUCTORS. NINETY-ONE PERCENT OF THE STUDENTS FELT THAT THE COURSES WERE MORE EFFECTIVE BECAUSE THEIR INSTRUCTORS WERE PRACTICING ELEMENTARY TEACHERS WHILE EIGHTY-THREE PERCENT STATED THAT THESE COURSES WERE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THEIR OTHER METHODS COURSES. OF THE 32 COOPERATING TEACHERS WHO RESPONDED, 20 THOUGHT THE APPROACH HAD GREAT POTENTIAL, 11 CONSIDERED IT NO DIFFERENT FROM USUAL METHODS COURSES, 1 THOUGHT IT POORER. WHILE THE INSTRUCTORS WERE GENERALLY FAVORABLE, THEY SAW DIFFICULTIES IN TERMS OF TEACHING LOAD AND THE ACADEMIC STATUS OF THE CLINICAL PROFESSOR. IT WAS FELT THAT SUCH PROBLEMS MUST BE RESOLVED AND THE APPROACH PURSUED. THIS ARTICLE APPEARED IN PEABODY JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, VOLUME 45, NO. 3, NOV. 1967. (RP)